Medicaid

After education, the State's biggest expenditure is health and human services -- specifically, Medicaid. As the federal government starts to think about bringing its budget more in balance, the states know how the federal government will do much of that; the feds will stop funding big-ticket programs and turn that responsibility over to the states. We're already starting to see that in the Medicaid arena (HIV/AIDS medication funding and mental health funding).

This situation suggests that states should be wary to take on programs that will largely be funded with federal "matching" money. States are constantly lobbied to institute such-and-such program, because for every 1 dollar the State spends on that program, the federal government will match it with 2 or 3 or 4 dollars. The problem is that many people come to rely on the program (whatever it is) -- maybe one that wasn't such a high priority for the State -- and, then, the State is left holding the bag when the federal money goes elsewhere.

On these specific issues, I would think that Utah will fund a portion of the mental health costs but will study the issue of funding medications over the interim before it starts down that path.

Goodbye, House Bills

Today is the last day to run House bills. If they don't pass through the House today, they die. Tune in to the webcast, and, if someone really gets deep into a stem-winder, you might see some nervous legislators alternatively glancing at the clock and glaring at the Representative.

Tuition Tax Credits either passes out of the House today or it dies. Too close to call. Yesterday, I snuck a peek at The Daily Debate, to see how the tuition tax credit debate was going, and saw that my brother was going back and forth in the comment section (against my position). All I need now for my Roger Clinton/Billy Carter nightmare to come true is for my dad to find out I was wrong about the Internet not being available in Texas.

UPDATE (end of day): TTC failed by a vote of 34-40. It might have been closer, in reality, but one or two representatives might have jumped from the sinking ship. The bill was amended to include a $10,000,000 insurance fund, in case a district suffered a financial loss; this might have picked up a vote or two, but it also might have scared away a few. It's always tough to decipher motivations after the fact.

Community Councils!

Hooray! I passed my most important bill -- raising the amount of money going to local community councils! To get the background on what this money does, click (here).

The bill shot out of the House early and languished in the Senate. Several Senators had concerns that, someday, too much money would go directly to the community councils and that, instead, it should flow through the districts with the other education money. Thankfully, there is legitimacy to that concern; the permanent school fund (the source of the community council funding) is growing quite rapidly. The Senate amended the bill, to tie the upper-limit of community council funding to 1.5% of all spending on public education.

Tethering the rate to the minimum school program, like that, makes sense. But I thought the 1.5% was pegged too low. The House refused to concur with the Senate amendments. So, it went back to the Senate. The Senate refused to recede from its amendments. The issue, then, went to a conference committee.

I LOVE conference committees. It's my favorite thing to do up here, because it is when the process is most intense. Either the committee agrees on something that the two bodies will accept or the the bill dies. If the issue is important, like this one, members of the body send you off with encouragement and welcome you back with enthusiasm.

I picked Ron Bigelow (appropriations chair) and Brent Goodfellow (former minority leader) to serve with me to represent the House position. Because the Senate sponsor, Tom Hatch, was going to be on the committee and a Senate Democrat was going to be on the committee ( and the Democrats unanimously support lifting the cap), I knew we'd come out of committee in good shape. The key, though, was getting something the Senate would accept.

Karen Hale, minority caucus manager, and Bill Hickman, my Senator, rounded out the committee. The committee agreed on 2%, and both bodies approved it. This means that the amount of money going to community councils will increase, until it is 4-times the current level (the current level is 0.5% of the minimum school program, which currently happens to be 2.1 billion dollars). This is a great victory for local control and parental involvement in education!

A footnote for the future, however. The 2.0% mark likely will be reached in 20 years. At that point, I hope things will be going so well that people will wonder who the idiot is that decided only 2.0% should go to community councils. For the record, that would be me. Ron really wanted to send it to the bodies at 2.5%. Looking at the final vote counts, it likely would have passed at that rate. This is one where I hope things will progress so nicely that history curses my name for having played any role in limiting funding to those fantastic mom-, dad- and teacher-run community councils!

Oh, Baby

Eating my Wheaties this morning, I read,

Huntsman Chief of Staff Jason Chaffetz criticized what he referred to as the "conservative resistance to the tax cut for corporate income."

"You would think a good conservative would want to cut taxes," Chaffetz complained. It marked the first time the new governor or his staff has publicly goaded legislators.

And I knew it was going to be a very long day. Part of the whip's job I learned today is to keep a bunch of fiscal conservatives from completely shutting down a budget that contains several pricey things they didn't want to fund but did in the good spirit of give-and-take that has prevailed.

Two points: One, the criticism the Legislature has received from several corners is primarily that it has not grown government programs enough this year. Two, this statement does not reflect the Gov. Huntsman I am growing to admire more and more each day. Put these two statements together, and what do you get?

The State will have a fiscally conservative budget this year (I know that's hard to swallow when we've spent so much money, but bear with me), and the Executive and Legislative branches will work this interim to figure out comprehensive tax reform (and, yes, I do realize that we can't call it "reform," if we raise the amount of total taxes paid). The key to this year's budget is that we immediately took money off the table (put it toward infrastructure expenses) before we started figuring out program budgets.

What is the significance of not plowing all the money into programs? It means that next year -- after the new administration and Legislature take a comprehensive look -- we will have more room to fund a . . . tax decrease!

On the quote, it's tough for me to be too critical. Just today, I said something to a reporter (about our flood relief fundraiser), immediately regretted it, and asked her not to print it (we'll see). The quote would not start an inter-branch fight, but it would embarrass a good (and private) representative who gave generously to the flood relief effort and would not want the kind of notoriety that would come from me enthusiastically blabbing his name to a reporter.

Health Care II

I've made up my mind on the 2 big health care bills making their way through the legislature -- SB 34 (Patient Access Reform) and SB 61 (the IHC break-up bill, which has been substituted many times and had many different titles). I will vote against SB 34, if it gets to the floor (it won't). On SB 61, I will vote for a task force to study the issues, ONLY IF the current provision comes out that makes it illegal to own a hospital and a health insurance business (effective July 1, 2008). Let's study it, and, then, figure out what we might want to do.

I'm often asked, "Does constituent feedback affect your decisions." You bet. These two bills provide an example.

You can see in my February 11th entry that I had determined (partially as a result of meeting with informed constituents) that these issues should be studied. But, I was struggling to figure out whether we should put IHC in a box for the study (i.e., require the separation, but delay it) or leave it out of the box. The good commentary I received to that entry (comments posted below that entry and comments sent privately to my e-mail) and commentary over at The Daily Debate contributed greatly to my decision.

UPDATE (02/24): An anonymous commentator states below, "Obviously no one involved in this debate has taken economics 101. Spliting up the IHC monster would promote growth in the health care industry in Utah."

And deregulating California utilities, without adequate study, obviously would promote improved power delivery. Oh, wait a second.

Not So Fast

Anyone involved in an issue sometimes cringes when reading about the issue in the newspaper. I cringed when I read Saturday's D-News story about putting the budget to bed early. Now, I don't know if I disagree with much of the story, other than the first line, which reads,

Legislative leaders and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. hope to present a final budget bill as early as Monday, almost five days before the deadline to pass a budget.

And, even on that, I can't say it's incorrect. I do hope we'll have a final budget by Monday, but I'm not betting on it. Yes, everything has been going very well between the House and Senate and between the Legislature and the Governor. Yes, we've passed bills for the bulk of our budget. And, although the article doesn't mention it, we've also agreed on the buildings to be built, and we've agreed that we'll build them with cash and no debt.

But, I immediately cringed, thinking of the likely reaction of House members, were they to read the article and believe leadership thinks it knows how the remaining money will be spent. Though Legislative leadership and the Governor agree on something, that's meaningless, if a majority in each house doesn't agree. And that's why I cringe. Republican leadership in the House hasn't presented these ideas to its members. Nor has the Senate, I believe. And our members just might be in a sour mood, if they believe we planned on blowing this thing through without a bit of wrangling and revising.

House leadership has taken great pains to involve the members -- from both parties -- frequently laying out progressing budget details in caucus meetings and in weekly meetings with minority leadership. Determination of the final budget details will follow the same course. House and Senate majority leadership will meet early Monday morning to finalize an agreement on ideas that will be taken to the members (those ideas, I should add, mostly come from meshing the recommendations of the appropriation sub-committees with input from the Governor). Though we don't expect the product to be overly surprising to our members, it of course will be presented to them for their revisions -- including complete revamping, if they so determine -- and ultimate adoption.

One of my goals in running for Whip was to wipe out the mushroom caucus (where members are kept in the dark and fed . . . manure). So far, it has worked well; House Republicans actually agreed on the buildings unanimously -- on the very first vote -- which I think is completely unheard of. (Outstanding work by Capital Facilities co-chairs Rep. Gregg Buxton and Sen. Bill Hickman on that one). I don't expect big problems on the remaining budget items, but I also don't expect our independent and opinionated members to simply salute when leadership's ideas are presented to them. In any event, I sure don't want the dedicated members to read the article and think leadership is coming Monday to dump on them a pre-baked pile of . . . manure.

UPDATE (2/20): Thank you, Thomas Burr:

Legislative leaders and the governor hope a final budget bill can be introduced later this week, maybe Wednesday or Thursday, and it could gain approval as quickly. If that happens, it would be one of the earliest times the budget is finalized compared to recent legislative sessions.

Sweeping the Board

We have 8 working days to go in our 45-day session. This afternoon in the House, we "swept the board," meaning that we moved all the bills on the third-reading calendar (meaning they were in the queue to be debated on the floor) back to the rules committee for "sifting." This is a bummer for those representatives whose bills were high on the calendar. They now need to lobby Rep. Becky Lockhart's Rules Committee, which will send bills to the third-reading calendar a few at a time.

UPDATE: Oh, I see that LaVarr Webb also wrote about sweeping the board at Utah Policy (but in a much more lucid manner than I did. Grrr!).

My first session up here, at about this point, I got chewed up in a committee. Mel Brown, one of the three former speakers who coincidentally picked that day to tell me I was doing a great job (because good stories travel fast, and all three knew I had just been kicked), took me off the hill for lunch (so I could lick my wounds in private). He asked, "Do you know why the legislature puts off all the hard issues to the end?"

I confessed I didn't and asked him, "Why?," needing some nugget of wisdom.

"Because it can't put them off any longer."

That's one of the smartest things I've ever heard. We have tough decisions to make, and now is when we have to finish making them.

We made a couple of tough decisions today -- passing Rep. Ferrin's tuition tax credits bill out of the education committee and not passing Rep. Litvack's hate crime bill out of committee. These are hard decisions that would leave members of the public with hard feelings, no matter which way we went. There is still a lot of process left for both issues, and I would encourage the public to sound off on both important issues.

Cats and Dogs

I'm being barraged with e-mails on a bill the legislature is considering -- Mike Noel's HB 140 (Individual Income Tax Contribution for Community Spay and Neuter Programs).

In 2001, we faced a bill to create a spay and neuter license plate. The volume of e-mails on that issue, likewise, was unbelievable.

I don't know what to make of it. A few years ago, I was the House sponsor for legislation that made some pretty significant changes to the death penalty, and I don't recall receiving a single e-mail.

I'm working on my next campaign theme: Urquhart -- loves spayed and neutered cats and dogs!

Healthy Difference of Opinion

One of the great things about being a legislator is the ability to witness and take part in the great debates of our time. I am very pleased that the Legislature has taken steps to make these debates more open to the public through audio and video links at the legislature's website. In my case, it is true that the camera adds 30 pounds. (Or was it the Aggie Ice Cream that Utah State University mercilessly bribes us with when it wants something?)

Trying to bring more of this good debate to the public, I've started the daily debate. Okay, actually, I had the idea and my wife has done all the work.

Today, Dr. Wendell Gibby and Kelly Atkinson debate any-willing-provider legislation (SB 34 -- Patient Access Reform). Some of my entries on this topic are found here and here.

Coming soon, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Rep. LaVar Christensen will debate hate crime legislation (though you'll see that they both regard that title as a misnomer). As I've stated before, hate crime legislation is my favorite topic of legislative debate. It cuts to the core of America's greatness -- liberty and equality -- while showing that passionate opinions can peaceably differ on how we get from here to there.

Gayle Ruzicka and Karen Crompton will debate whether child welfare laws in Utah give too much power to the State. This year, several pieces of legislation address child welfare reform, such as Rep. Harper's HB 202 (Revisions to Child Welfare) and Sen. Thomas's SB 83 (Medical Decisions of a Parent or Guardian).

Doug Holmes of Utah Education Excellence will debate Joanne Neilson, State PTA President, on HB 39 (Tuition Tax Credits). A recent article describes the current status of tuition tax credits, and my entries on this topic are found here, here, here and here; read them all -- there will be a quiz.

Other debates in the works include state Republican Party Chair Joe Cannon and Democrat Party Chair Donald Dunn on the health of Utah's political system, Don Peay and Debbie Goodman on the introduction of wolves into Utah, and Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and former House Speaker Marty Stephens on the representative nature of the Utah Legislature. If we can get any of these shrinking violets to speak out, it should be fun.

Thanks to my wife Sara (and her brother Jared) for setting up the site, arranging these debates, and working with the participants to make it possible -- and for being practically perfect in every way; Sara, that is.

No Child Left Behind II

HJR 1 and HB 135, Utah's pushback bills on the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, passed the House unanimously yesterday. Jeniffer Toomer-Cook attributed the following to Patti Harrington (our new and incredible State Superintendent of Public Instruction -- who entered the system as a bus driver), regarding NCLB,

"(The time and money) could be used to improve student achievement in our state," Harrington said. "This is federal intrusion. The state runs public schools. My accountability is to the State Board of Education, the state Legislature and the governor. I shouldn't have the additional piece of the federal government on top of that."

This issue presents a great example of federalism -- the vertical separation of powers between the federal government and the states. The people, through the states, gave the federal government limited powers to deal with specified issues (e.g., national defense and treaties), and the states kept the remainder of government powers to deal with all other issues. On those other issues, to be quite blunt, the federal government was supposed to butt out. Federalism is the most unique aspect of our Constitution and one of the most important -- allowing states to do their own thing on many issues, thereby fostering competition and experimentation that drives innovation and improvement. Federalism is healthy for our country; however, it has been on the decline for many decades. NCLB might change that.

States take nothing more seriously than education. The federal government should never pretend to know a fraction as much about education as the states, and it especially should not pretend to know more about education in any particular state than the state itself does. Though Utah is on the forefront of the pushback effort, other states also are beginning to realize that something significant was taken from them and making movements toward taking it back. This isn't revolution, and it's not even disrespect. It is the Constitution working.

UPDATE: Margaret's bill and my previous entry got a mention in The New York Times. The article supports my federalism-upswing entry above. The article says,

Support from Democrats [for NCLB] has since withered [after passage in 2001], but vigorous challenges have come from Republican state legislators who view the measure as an unwanted mandate from Washington in an area traditionally left to states.

The action last year by the [Utah] House inspired similar actions nationwide. Legislatures in some 30 states considered challenges to the federal law. This year, the legislatures in Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia are considering challenges.

Increased Revenues

The latest revenue projections show that Utah will bring in $285 million more revenue for the current fiscal year than had been anticipated and possibly $398 million more for the fiscal year that will start July 1, 2005. As the D-News puts it, "Utah coffers are bursting at seams."

No doubt, sugar-plum fairies are dancing in the heads of many state agency directors. But before we put all the money into on-going programs, I hope we don't forget the lessons we only recently learned. In 2001, we had similar surpluses -- and we spent them. By September 11th of that year (actually before that), we realized we shouldn't have built up those programs; the revenues were sliding.

None of us has a crystal ball. No one can predict the future will be all sunshine. Therefore, we need to exercise discipline and not spend like drunken sailors. First off, we need to do one of two things. We need to refund money to the taxpayers. Or, if we don't have the political muster to do that this year, we need to put the money where we can take it back next year (roads and buildings) and use that money next year to fund a tax cut, as part of the tax reform effort Gov. Huntsman and the legislature will engage in this year.

Regarding option 1, some might ask, "How can we give the money back when there's so much need?" Well, these recent revenue numbers show that people are doing a good job growing the economy with their money. If we let them hang on to a little more of it, they might just generate a lot more of it for themselves (and for state coffers).

No Child Left Behind

Jennifer Toomer-Cook wrote an article on Rep. Margaret Dayton's bill on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) -- HB 135 (Implementing Federal Educational Programs). I mention both their names because I like people who work hard and get it right at whatever it is they do, and Jennifer and Margaret are two good examples of people who do exactly that.

My brother asked me, "What is the deal with the Utah Legislature and No Child Left Behind? Aren't y'all big Bush supporters?"

We are strong supporters of President Bush. But that doesn't mean NCLB isn't seriously flawed. NCLB is a textbook example of the framers' wisdom in making the federal government a government of limited powers -- with the plenary powers remaining with the people and the states. NCLB might be beneficial for states and school districts that don't have a clue. But for the others, it shows that one size does not fit all.

When passed, NCLB already was several years behind Utah requirements. Utah already had moved toward a greater focus on accountability and competency-based education, through the U-PASS requirements, as just one example. Hence, Rep. Kory Holdaway's HJR 3 (Resolution Regarding Federal No Child Left Behind), recognizing:

that the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students (U-PASS) should be the basis for assessing and monitoring Utah's students and schools;

and

that the state should control its public education budget and allocate money according to Utah's priorities and needs, driven by decision-making of local school boards.

Because Utah cares so deeply about education, the various players and interest groups rarely agree on much of anything. However, Rep. Dayton has rallied all the players and interest groups I can think of behind the principle that NCLB does not help Utah accomplish what it is trying to do in education. The requirements of NCLB are meddlesome and unrealistically rigid.

For example, NCLB's yearly progress requirements guarantee (as a simple matter of math and principles of diminishing returns) that the highest achieving school in my legislative district will soon be branded a failing school and face the punitive provisions that designation brings with it. Why? Because it simply and realistically cannot do much better than it already is doing. Other schools in my district did not start at such a high performance level and, therefore, do have room to meet the annual progress requirements. This is just one example.

Perhaps I could have Rep. Dayton drive this site as my first guest blogger to provide more examples. I previously asked her if she wanted to debate the issue over at the daily debate, but we couldn't find anyone who wanted to take the side that NCLB is a good thing for Utah. Maybe one of the "federal education officials" coming to talk with us about Margaret's bill would be willing to argue that the state superintendent and the superintendents' association, the state school board and the state school boards' association, the Utah education association, the state PTA, the Utah taxpayers association, the eagle forum, and anyone else involved with Utah schools in any way simply don't have as clear a view of what is best for Utah schools as do the good people in Washington, D.C.

Are We There Yet?

The legislature has passed the bulk of its budget, though admittedly the easy part of it. While there is still plenty of time to come completely unraveled, I'm pleased with the progress of the session. It promises to be fiscally good for the State, and that is necessary for us to thrive.

I am very pleased that we passed the bulk of the budget bill with 2 1/2 weeks to go. By getting the consensus portions out of the way early, it brings the battles ahead more sharply into focus. It defines the amount of money remaining, for which the various programs will compete.

As a progress report, I'm proud of Governor Huntsman. (I better be; my wife had lunch with the First Lady today and now demands that I be nice to Mary Kay's husband; a shrewd -- if not outright nefarious -- tactic, I might editorialize; to fight fire with fire, when the moment is right, I will send my youngest daughter to the East Building with a plate of cookies; unless he's super-human, he'll be putty in my hands.) I think Gov. Huntsman is finding his feet quite well and is taking positions on tough issues. As I wrote earlier, it's less important to me that he agree with me on issues (though he should, as a clear-thinking individual) than that he roll up his sleeves and dig into the tough issues. I have seen no sign of him shrinking from the tough ones -- and that's pretty cool.

Health Care

Last night, the House had its annual speaker's dinner ('50s theme). This is always a great opportunity in the middle of the session to take a break from our battles and remind ourselves that we like each other and that we are part of a big team trying to work out solutions to tough issues for the good of our citizens.

Speaking of tough issues -- a Senate committee struggled this morning with SB 61 (Gross Receipts Tax on Privately Owned Health Care Organizations) and took no action on the bill. This might be regarded as a companion bill to SB 34 (Patient Access Reform), which I wrote about in the entry of February 1, 2005. Both are aimed at addressed perceived market dominance (and alleged control) by IHC.

There was a very impressive showing on the hill against SB 61 (probably a couple thousand people). They were lined up outside the capitol with loudspeakers broadcasting the hearing. It always impresses me that we can debate important topics in a peaceful (but passionate) manner.

As I wrote in the earlier entry, I'm not ready to implement either of these bills (because I'm not sure what the effects will be). But, it definitely would be a good thing to study the issue of IHC's place in the market (wonderful integrated health care system v. monopolist). I wouldn't mind if we passed something requiring separation of health care and health insurance ownership or even taxation of a unified system, as SB 61 proposes, as long as it the measure has a delayed implementation date allowing us to study the issue in more detail. When an entity has such market place dominance and political power (as shown by the impressive rally), it is an important move to make sure they are at the table in a substantive way, rather than just a political way. A delayed implementation measure would assure that.

UPDATE (evening): SB 34 shot out of the Senate like a cannon (19-8). As the D-News says, "The House now gets to wrestle with the question." The D-News also has an article on SB 61, which was substituted in committee to make it so that owning both a health care insurance business and a health care delivery business is an unfair business practice act; however, action was not taken on that substitute to pass it out of committee. SB 61, obviously, is now pointed toward the forced separation approach I mentioned above. As I wrote earlier, if we're going to do anything, this is the correct way to approach it.

However, whether we should do anything this session or whether we should first study the issue in more detail is the decision we face. Having discussed this issue several times with the maker of the substitute bill, I'm confident he would agree with that statement. Not knowing he was going to make that substitution, I had told Sen. Peterson (a great friend and legislator) before the meeting, "It doesn't matter a whole lot to me what happens in the Senate. I'm going to work to push this issue into a task force." The Senate is a tough-minded bunch, but I wonder if they won't end up agreeing we should study this issue. This is one dog-fight I'm happy to get in the middle of -- because legislative process might just do something great for health care in this state by addressing this issue head on.

A friend and constituent e-mailed me the following in response to my above entry.

I agreed with most of the comments posted on www.steveu.com today, with one exception. It seems very wrong to me to pass questionable legislation with extended implementation dates and then study it. If it's questionable legislation, defeat it. Then study the issues and pass good legislation. I do respect your opinion, however, and am interested why you would suggest passing these bills given their lack of study and doing the study afterward.

Does anyone care to help me with the response?

UPDATE II (02/13/05): I really am surprised by the attention SB 34 and SB 61 are generating. Today, all Utah dailies have major articles on the bills. Also, check out the excellent analysis in the comments below by Chris Barker and on 2/1/05 by Chris Barker and by Charley Foster -- who has a really fine blog on Utah happenings.

Budget Prioritization

The executive appropriations committee just met. We approved base budgets, with a few fireworks. The biggest fireworks were on transportation funding and state parks.

After some wrestling between the House and Senate, 70 million dollars was approved for transportation funding. Of course, a majority of each house needs to approve this action. For the Senate, this is likely the end of the conversation. For the House, it is the beginning (see my previous posts on budgeting, for the reasons why the House wants to fund transportation with cash instead of credit). But, it gets that much of the budget off the table and makes it more likely we will be able to pass most of the budget early in the session.

The natural resources committee determined that funding law enforcement for the division of wildlife resources was not as important as some other items. The State Parks Board responded by saying it would have to close parks, if that recommendation was approved. Our people likely don't want us to close any state parks. We'll dig further into that budget and see if parks would have to be closed. If that is the case, we'll need to adjust priorities or overall funding for the committee (one of the three committees to take an overall cut during the past 5 years). If it is not the case and the Board was needlessly ramping up the dialogue, we'll need to make adjustments to the Board.

Stay tuned. If we can get the base budget out of the way, our discussions on the remaining money should be pretty focused and crisp.

Retirement Benefits II

Last week, I commented on the treatment of already-accrued sick leave benefits in HB 213 (Unused Sick Leave at Retirement Amendments).

Regarding the going-forward portion of the bill (treatment of benefits accumulated after 1/1/06), a reader commented it isn't fair that this future sick leave will be traded out at the retiree's actual retirement wage. Whereas now all state employees trade 8 hours of accumulated sick leave for a month of insurance (an equal trade for all employees, regardless of their wage), the future trade of sick leave for money is not an equal trade (because high wage earners will trade for higher wages; low wage earners will trade for lower wages).

It might make some sense for the employees' association to focus some attention on that disparity issue. Unfortunately, though, the association has taken an all or nothing position on this one. Maybe that will work. Then again, maybe it won't.

With the IRS determination (explained below) and the rapid escalation of insurance costs, the State is in a position where it really should act. That being the case, on the going-forward part of HB 213, the lower wage earners might want to consider pushing for a higher wage trade. For example, rather than the actual wage, it might make some sense for all unused sick leave (again, just that accumulated after 1/1/06) to trade at the average or median wage for all state employees -- automatically adjusted each year to match the then-current state average or median wage.

No doubt, there are other ideas that could be explored to make things better for the low wage earners, but people have to sit down at the table and talk. Four of the five bills I'm running this year started with warring parties. Through a lot of difficult and at-times heated conversations, we worked out the problems and came up with legislation that all sides could feel good about. The process works, if people will let it.

Spyware II

My spyware bill passed out of committee yesterday. Because they properly characterize the bill, I don’t have any big beefs with the articles written about the bill. However, I do feel the need to clarify that I did not concede that last year’s bill was hastily written, because in no way would I care to diminish the efforts or skills of all those who worked on that bill. To the contrary, I predict that last year’s bill someday will become the standard – that data mining will require disclosure. Now, though, I think the topic is hands-off because of overly-restrictive dormant commerce clause interpretations; later, as judges become more familiar with technology, I think they will understand that states do have a role to play.

What I did say about being early was adequately captured by Brice Wallace:

[T]he sponsor, Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, said Monday that Utah was "maybe a touch early" with its legislation. Some businesses at that time were being affected by outside pop-ups, but now the "bigs of the world" are being affected by spyware that generates pop-ups, he said.

We were a touch ahead of the curve. This year, though, the public is better-informed and more frustrated with spyware, and businesses are ready to act. Time Warner/AOL (which was opposed to last year’s effort) has done a tremendous job of coming to the table and digging into the issue.

Gold Star

The February 2005 issue of Governing magazine graded state governments. Utah and Virginia shared the top spot. Being a fan of Virginia’s ability to plan and prioritize, it is an honor to be regarded as its contemporary in sound governance.

Calling Utah “perhaps the nation’s most information-driven state,” Governing observed:

If Utah’s planning process has suffered a minor case of overkill, however, the benefits of its overall approach have never been clearer than during the past couple of fiscally challenging years. Compared with budget debates in other places, those in Utah have been laced with hard statistics, not just anecdotes.

These are kind words, especially coming halfway through a general session – the point when I (and probably much of the public) start to wonder if we do anything right.

The House and the Senate have been digging into the facts, and we should start rolling out budget bills this week – a bit earlier than normal in an attempt to avoid fat-ladling at the end of the session. The thing I like the most about the House is that we are willing to take on tough issues. This year, there is no shortage of tough issues.

For example, HB 213 (Unused Sick Leave at Retirement Amendments), HB 109 (Information Technology Governance Amendments), and paying for transportation needs with cash instead of credit are complex, important issues. On all 3, we could take a pass. We could go home in a few weeks and tell our constituents what a great job we did, and few people would beat us up for not taking action in any of these 3 areas. Many people would even praise us for not messing with their program in any way. But all that would accomplish would be to push these mushrooming problems into the future.

I don't think we'll do that. At least, I hope we won't. As the Governing article states, we do have hard data at our fingertips. When our research suggests we need to act, we typically do.

Midwife Legislation

We've been receiving lots of e-mail, pro and con, on HB 25 (Direct-Entry Midwife Act). Here is one from my district:

HB25 is not about a woman's right to choose midwifery. The women of Utah already have that right. Nor is this bill about a woman's right to choose a midwife who can administer prescription drugs, as nurse midwives can already do that.

This bill is about a small group of midwives who want to use the government to limit the choice of women in Utah for their own economic benefit. They and their national association have come for a government handout.

Although the bill states it is voluntary, it is not. It already submits all direct entry midwives, licensed or not, to sanctions for unlawful or unprofessional conduct -- rules that are normally only applied to those who are licensed. It is only a small step from this bill to full licensure and full government regulation; all in the name of providing a benefit that already exists.

For some of the reasons that are stated in that e-mail, I will vote against this bill.

We'll Clobber You

Sundays during the session provide a nice break from politics. But walking through my house this morning, I see there is no escape from politics. My oldest daughters want their younger siblings to give them more privacy. They have posted a note on their door (which I don't think their younger siblings would be able to read), stating 3 reasons their siblings should "KEEP OUT!" My laughter woke them up, as I recognized the 3 lines of reasoning they (and all interest groups and politicians) employ to win the issue.

Step 1: An appeal to higher motivations: "Bugging us is rude."

Step 2: Constituent concerns: "We'll tell Mom."

Step 3: Raw power: "We'll clobber you."

Nuclear Waste

Wednesday I wrote about B and C radioactive waste. While that is a serious issue, it is child's play compared to storage of spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. The used rods -- thousands of times more radioactive than B and C waste -- are building up at nuclear power plants across the country, increasing pressure for a disposal site. Two sites are on the map -- the permanent site at Yucca Mountain, NV, and the "temporary" site in Skull Valley, Utah, just west of Salt Lake City.

The Deseret News ran an article today, titled "Utah in nuclear waste crosshairs." The article rightly states that Utah should be concerned that funding for Yucca Mountain is being cut. If that project is slowing, and the pressure to move the fuel rods away from the plants is increasing, what does that mean? Clearly, it means that the likelihood of the waste being "temporarily" stored in Utah will increase.

I've seen this coming for a while, and touched the third rail in 2003 when I proposed that Utah study its options to avoid this situation. It's clearly an issue that politicians would rather avoid. As Congressman Matheson daringly opined in the D-News article, "Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, doesn't see the Yucca and Skull Valley plans as linked, says Matheson spokeswoman Alyson Heyrend." That, of course, is a comfortable political position to take. The problem is, it denies reality.

The rest of the nation clearly does see the two plans as linked. As the spokeswoman for the Skull Valley project gleefully states, "[I]t could mean that utilities would be even more interested in our facility." In December, Matthew Wald (an influential writer for the New York Times) wrote a disturbing article on storage of the fuel rods in MIT's Technology Review magazine. There, he discussed growing concerns and difficulties with storing the rods at Yucca Mountain. He also questioned the wisdom of permanently storing the rods there or anywhere. What we need, he reasoned, is a place to store the rods (for 100 years or so) until the march of technology presents us with better alternatives; a "suboptimal" alternative is needed to buy time.

Wald writes,

But after 20 years of pursuing geologic disposal, and 15 years of chasing Yucca and avoiding any mention of a plan B, just such an ad hoc, and suboptimal, solution is emerging. . . . Cask storage is not pretty, but what’s wrong with the idea of an industrial repository, a few hectares set aside for the next century or so, a single, guarded location in a little-populated area, a location that in ten years or so will be remarkable only because it’s a place where the snow doesn’t stick? Macfarlane of MIT says making such site secure and terrorist-proof would cost $6.5 billion, at most. “Isn’t that worth it? How much have we spent on Iraq? Look what we got for that money. And there’s more at risk here,” she says.

Hmm. Where might he conclude we should do that? Walds continues,

Finding a central site poses obvious challenges; nobody wants any type of radioactive waste site in his or her backyard. But after extended negotiations, a group of utility engineers . . . cut a deal with the Skull Valley band of the Goshute Indian tribe for a long lease on part of its reservation 80 kilometers west of Salt Lake City. The area already hosts an air-force bombing range, a nerve gas depot and incinerator, and a dump for low-level radioactive waste; the Goshutes figure they can use the rent to buy themselves land in a nicer neighborhood.

If Congressman Matheson and other federal leaders continue to allege they "don't see" any link between Yucca Mountain and Skull Valley, I'm concerned that Utah will be stuck with a lot of nuclear waste, and we'll walk around saying, "We never saw it coming."

Justice for a Few More

At times, rough justice beats perfect justice. Getting a little carried away with ideals of perfect justice, America has so-thickly armored its legal system with protective rules and procedures that the system, in practical application, has become completely impenetrable to the common citizen.

Yes, the system dangles the promise of perfect justice – but don’t get too carried away about it; unless you’re better off than the rest of us, navigating all the rules and procedures necessary to reach that theoretical perfection will cost too much and take too long; you can’t afford the ticket of admission to the system. The things that are supposed to ensure justice – like fussy procedural and evidentiary rules – jack up the complexity and costs of the legal system so much that most Americans, and most Utahns, have no meaningful shot at justice through the legal system.

With that in mind, I passed HB 124 (Small Claims Court Jurisdiction Amendments) in 2003, to increase the jurisdictional amount in small claims court to $7,500 and, as soon as the Supreme Court crafts implementing rules, to make it so that non-lawyers can help individuals in that setting (which the legislature likely will do for the Court, if it does not get the rules in place this year).

Today, I passed 1 SHB 235 (Insurance Arbitration Amendments) out of the House Judiciary committee. It deals with quicker resolution of injuries in motor vehicle accidents. When insurance is involved, an injured party can demand that the matter be arbitrated, if he agrees to cap his recovery at $25,000. This could be fast and effective – if the arbitration decisions are not appealed too often. To discourage appeals, the appealing party has to improve his position by 20% on appeal; if he doesn’t, he owes the other party her costs.

I’m excited about the experiment proposed by 1 SHB 235, and I’m very grateful for the many representatives of insurance companies and plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel who have given many hours over the past year to work on this issue. Because of their efforts, I think the system will improve in this area for all sides and for the people of Utah.

Retirement Benefits

Close friends and neighbors are calling me in a panic over HB 213 (Unused Sick Leave at Retirement Amendments). They are panicked, because the public employees' association is misleading them, saying that the legislature is stealing from them benefits they already have accrued. As many of the e-mails rightly say, public employees have gone without pay raises for too long; therefore, it is unfair to steal accrued benefits. I agree; that's why we're not going to do that.

My question is: Is it fair for those underpaid employees to pay dues to an association, only to have that association mislead them, so that the association can generate a barrage of panicked phone calls and e-mails to legislators?

Here is my response to constituents:

The state is looking at restructuring post-employment benefits.

Why? Because it has to.

A recent IRS ruling threatens to change the way these benefits are taxed. This means we must look at the issue.

Change can be scary. We realize that. However, to set your mind at ease, I would like to clarify the main assumption of these discussions. That assumption is – we will not take away the benefits you have accumulated.

First off, if you are already retired, don’t bother reading the rest of this message. Nothing is changing for you.

If you’re still working, you currently have the option upon retirement of taking some amount of your eligible accumulated sick leave in cash (up to 25% of the value). The rest goes to health insurance (1 month for every 8 hours).

Under HB 213 your accumulated sick leave still converts to health insurance at the same rate (1 month for every 8 hours). The difference is in the 25% that you now are able to get in cash. The IRS rule requires that this amount be paid into a 401K.

So, this means – for all your sick leave accumulated up until now – 25% of the value will go into a 401K, and the rest can still be converted to health insurance (1 month for every 8 hours). Again, these benefits are yours – you earned them and will receive them – though the IRS is forcing us to change how you receive them.

Now, let’s talk about future benefits you accumulate (after 1/1/06). Here, again, we’re not talking about any of the benefits you accumulated before 1/1/06. For all additional benefits you accumulate after 1/1/06, twenty-five percent (25%) of the value will go into a 401K. The remainder will go into a medical reimbursement plan – an account from which you can pay for medical expenses or insurance. The amount of money in that account will be the amount of your retirement wage multiplied by the number of hours of unused sick leave you accumulate after 1/1/06.

Please understand, the 1/1/06 date only changes your expectations for the unused sick leave you accumulate after that date. Everything you accumulate before 1/1/06 will go 25% to a 401K and the rest to health insurance (1 month for every 8 hours). Don’t believe the nonsense out there about having to retire to keep those benefits. That is a cruel story. You earned your benefits, and you get to keep them.

Public employees work hard to keep our State going. The legislature realizes that fact and appreciates the sacrifices our State's employees make; that is why there is broad legislative agreement that public employees will get a pay raise this year.

If public employees think I've mischaracterized HB 213, I invite them to get back to me. If I haven't mischaracterized HB 213, I invite them to ask their association why it has.

We will have difficult and important discussions on the going-forward portion of HB 213 (i.e., what will happen with sick leave benefits accumulated after 1/1/06). But that has to be a factual discussion. An important fact, and a fact I want to make clear with our public employees, is that the benefits you have accumulated to date are held precious to you -- and precious to the legislature.

Radioactive Issues

The new owners of Envirocare announced that the company would give up its quest to receive hotter levels of radioactive waste. Yesterday I wrote about the value of legislative study and committee work. Though I doubt you’ll read it anywhere else, Envirocare’s announcement is a tribute to legislative study and committee work.

Envirocare’s permit application to receive B and C waste had been pending for some time, needing legislative and gubernatorial approval. The company argued that the public would accept the hotter waste, if only they knew the facts. Opponents argued that the public would not accept the hotter waste. Along with other issues, a legislative task force studied that issue. Along with Senator Curt Bramble, I had the privilege of co-chairing the waste policy task force.

After the facts were laid out and examined by the task force, it turned out the opponents were right; the public will not accept hotter radioactive waste. Duh, many might say. But that is not the end of the story. The task force’s examination made it clear to all parties, including Envirocare, that neither the public nor the legislature would accept hotter waste. Envirocare then adjusted its practices and planning to meet that clear reality. This was an important step in cleanly bringing the issue to finality.

With a permit pending – one having been previously approved on the technical merits by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality – Envirocare did have some investment-backed expectations and, therefore, some legal rights to a certain process. Changing the law mid-stream in that permitting process (by outright banning B and C waste) might have created a legal cause of action, thereby entitling Envirocare to some money damages. But, because the legislative process gave Envirocare a clearer view of its future prospects, it made the decision to abandon its quest for hotter waste without litigation and the public expense and angst that would have resulted.

These last 2 years, the task force and its individual members were pilloried for being too quick to act, too slow to act, too close to Envirocare, too close to Envirocare’s adversaries, going too far and not going far enough. But the members dug in and did their work. As a result, the public won this one.

Any Willing Provider

Is Intermountain Health Care a monopoly? That is the question – or, more accurately, the assumption – underlying SB 34 (“Patient Access Reform”) – better known as “Any Willing Provider.” Because this bill could greatly affect your medical care, I’d like to walk you through the issue and my reasoning.

Because IHC dominates the health care market in Utah – in terms of facilities and health insurance, proponents of SB 34 argue the State should force IHC to cover the services of ANY doctor in the State that an IHC-insured patient chooses to use – not just those providers IHC has chosen to have on its panel of providers. That’s the main thrust of this short, but huge, 8-sentence bill.

IHC agrees that it does have a significant presence in Utah’s health care arena. By integrating health care and insurance into a system, IHC argues, it can better manage quality and costs for the benefit of patients. Though it might not state it so bluntly, IHC is concerned that SB 34 will force it to open its panels to doctors who do not meet what it determines to be acceptable standards of care or who do not agree to accept reduced rates for services.

This dispute is one our legislature can address in good fashion. But, first, we need to identify the real issues. To me, the issues aren’t whether a non-panel doctor should get 95% of what a panel doctor would get or whether the non-panel doctor can bill the patient for the balance of that bill or whether the same deductibles will apply for panel or non-panel doctors.

The issue is whether IHC is a monopoly. If it is, let’s not mess around. In that case, let’s not dabble with reimbursement rates, balance billing, and deductibles; let’s break up the monopoly – force the separation of health delivery and health insurance ownership.

. . . if IHC is a monopoly.

Hmm. But what if it’s not? What if it’s just big? And what if it’s right about improving quality and cost through an integrated system?

At this time, I could not support SB 34. It diagnoses a cancer, but then merely treats some symptoms. I’m not prepared to make such a diagnosis, and, without such a diagnosis, I’m not willing to prescribe the medicine. But I think the people of Utah deserve to have the issue thoroughly examined. The combatants in this battle should welcome such an examination.
Maybe we can compile enough data to reach some conclusions before the session ends. Maybe not. If not, this issue would be great for a task force. I believe in legislative process and the ability of committees to do amazing work on complex issues.